Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading the backend's error-message infrastructure

2003-03-14 Thread Tom Lane
johnn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If it's different enough to warrant a different message, then, in my > mind, it's different enough to warrant a different SQLSTATE. Unfortunately, you're at odds with the SQL spec authors, who have made their intentions pretty clear by defining only about 13

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading the backend's error-message infrastructure

2003-03-14 Thread johnnnnnn
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 12:23:04PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > It would seem to make more sense to me to provide a different > > function(s) which allows the lookup Messages, Details, and Hints > > based on the SQLSTATE. > > This would constrain us to have a different SQLSTATE for every error > mes

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading the backend's error-message infrastructure

2003-03-14 Thread Tom Lane
johnn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It would seem to make more sense to me to provide a different > function(s) which allows the lookup Messages, Details, and Hints based > on the SQLSTATE. This would constrain us to have a different SQLSTATE for every error message, which we aren't going to d

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading the backend's error-message infrastructure

2003-03-14 Thread johnnnnnn
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 03:51:00PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Wire-protocol changes > - > > Error and Notice (maybe also Notify?) msgs will have this structure: > > E > x string \0 > x string \0 > x string \0 > \0 > > where the x's are single-chara

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading the backend's error-message infrastructure

2003-03-14 Thread Þórhallur Hálfdánarson
-*- Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ 2003-03-14 15:33 ]: > Darko Prenosil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > What about user messages ? > > If I remember correct, MSSQL had a system catalog table with formated error > > messages, and it was possible to raise error with error number and it's > > param

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading the backend's error-message infrastructure

2003-03-14 Thread Tom Lane
Darko Prenosil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > What about user messages ? > If I remember correct, MSSQL had a system catalog table with formated error > messages, and it was possible to raise error with error number and it's > parameters. It can be very useful when you must raise same error from

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading the backend's error-message infrastructure

2003-03-14 Thread Darko Prenosil
On Thursday 13 March 2003 20:51, Tom Lane wrote: > (Or, protocol upgrade phase 1...) > > After digging through our many past discussions of what to do with error > messages, I have put together the following first-cut proposal. Fire at > will... > > > Objective > - > > The basic objective

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading the backend's error-message infrastructure

2003-03-13 Thread Tom Lane
"Christopher Kings-Lynne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Would it be possible to do a command line app? > > bash$ pg_error 1200D > Severity: ERROR > Message: Division by zero > Detail: > Hint: Modify statement to prevent zeros appearing in denominators. You're assuming that there's a one-to-one ma

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading the backend's error-message infrastructure

2003-03-13 Thread Christopher Kings-Lynne
> On Thu, 2003-03-13 at 21:16, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: > > Would it be possible to do a command line app? > > > > bash$ pg_error 1200D > > Severity: ERROR > > Message: Division by zero > > Detail: > > Hint: Modify statement to prevent zeros appearing in denominators. > > Is there any benefit

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading the backend's error-message infrastructure

2003-03-13 Thread Neil Conway
On Thu, 2003-03-13 at 21:16, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: > Would it be possible to do a command line app? > > bash$ pg_error 1200D > Severity: ERROR > Message: Division by zero > Detail: > Hint: Modify statement to prevent zeros appearing in denominators. Is there any benefit to having this ov

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading the backend's error-message infrastructure

2003-03-13 Thread Christopher Kings-Lynne
> Great work, Tom! > > While we're effectively changing every elog call site in the backend, > would it also be a good idea to adopt a standard for the format of error > messages? (e.g. capitalization, grammar, etc.) I 100% agree with this - a style guide! Chris ---(end

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading the backend's error-message infrastructure

2003-03-13 Thread Christopher Kings-Lynne
> Comments? All the error stuff sounds really neat. I volunteer for doing lots of elog changes when the time comes. Would it be possible to do a command line app? bash$ pg_error 1200D Severity: ERROR Message: Division by zero Detail: Hint: Modify statement to prevent zeros appearing in denomina

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading the backend's error-message infrastructure

2003-03-13 Thread Tom Lane
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > While we're effectively changing every elog call site in the backend, > would it also be a good idea to adopt a standard for the format of error > messages? (e.g. capitalization, grammar, etc.) Yup. I was planning to bring that up as a separate thread. I

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading the backend's error-message infrastructure

2003-03-13 Thread Neil Conway
On Thu, 2003-03-13 at 15:51, Tom Lane wrote: > After digging through our many past discussions of what to do with error > messages, I have put together the following first-cut proposal. Great work, Tom! While we're effectively changing every elog call site in the backend, would it also be a good

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading the backend's error-message infrastructure

2003-03-13 Thread Larry Rosenman
--On Thursday, March 13, 2003 16:20:21 -0500 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Larry Rosenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: __FUNCTION__ or an equivalent is MANDATED by C99, and available on UnixWare's native cc. You might want to make a configure test for it. Right, __func__ is the C99 spellin

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading the backend's error-message infrastructure

2003-03-13 Thread Tom Lane
Larry Rosenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > __FUNCTION__ or an equivalent is MANDATED by C99, and available on > UnixWare's native cc. > You might want to make a configure test for it. Right, __func__ is the C99 spelling. I did have a configure test in mind here: __func__ or __FUNCTION__ or NUL

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading the backend's error-message infrastructure

2003-03-13 Thread Larry Rosenman
--On Thursday, March 13, 2003 15:51:00 -0500 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: (__FUNCTION__ is only used if we are compiling in gcc). errstart() pushes an empty entry onto an error-data-collection stack and fills in the behind-the-scenes file/line entries. errmsg() and friends stash value